Pass the Tofurky

Being a pescetarian (like a vegetarian, but with fish included in my diet), Thanksgiving isn't exactly my ideal holiday. While I love mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, and bringing the whole family together to appreciate the good fortune in our lives, I despise fielding unending questions from my grandma about why I choose not to eat turkey on this holiday. Even on days that aren't centered on the slaughter and consumption of other creatures, people constantly inquire about my motives for limiting my diet. It's evident to me that people treat me differently once they discover my eating habits; once they know, their voices fill with both awe at my self-control and doubt about my sanity.

Food is no longer just a means for survival; it is so intrinsically and uniquely cultural and so temporal that people see it as an extension of themselves. Sharing a meal, like many people do on Thanksgiving, has implications beyond those created in the production and consumption of the food that arrives on the table. That being said, people become very sensitive about food, seeing any refusal to partake in the prepared meal as a personal insult, and guarding family recipes with their lives. This puts vegetarians, vegans, or anyone who chooses to limit their diet (those with medical dietary restrictions are looked upon differently, a point to be examined another time) in a difficult spot, living in a world of indiscriminate eaters.

Well, why do I choose to limit what I eat? I have a wide range of reasons, including but not limited to animal welfare, energy inefficiency, religious belief, negative effects on ecology and health, and dislike for the taste of meat. But I do not encourage others to pursue veganism, vegetarianism, or even pescetarianism. In fact, I would argue against it if it would cause any discomfort, familial fracture, feeling of loss of culture, or desire for meat. The point is that I feel none of those things, despite my limited diet, and that's why it works for me.

My message to the people who raise an eyebrow at my diet is similar to that of author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals (a fantastic read!): people should not try to confine themselves within the labels of "vegetarian", "vegan", or even "carnivore" (yes, "carnivore" is a label too). What every single person should try to achieve, regardless of their opinions on eating animal products, is to become a conscious consumer.

All too often, people view eating as all-or-nothing; either you're a meat-eater or you're a vegetarian. In reality, making situation-specific choices is the best decision and is considerably more rational than blindly limiting (or un-limiting) your diet. Maybe you choose to eat beef but cut out chicken and turkey because of the amount of cruelty in their production. Maybe you choose to eat chicken only once a week, maybe you choose to eat only kosher meat. The most important thing is to be conscious of the cost of your food (in ecology, culture, and cruelty) and to make sustainable choices from that point.

In what way do you choose to eat and why? Let me know!

The Whistle-Blower

There is a nouveau-archetype evolving in our ever changing world, especially pertinent now because the Republican nomination for President is heating up: the whistle-blower. Republican nominee Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by about four women in the last few weeks, occurring somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. There is extensive evidence against him. Sharon Bialek (the only woman to come forward) lost her job in the 1990s and asked Cain, then the president of the National Restaurant Association, for help. She even remembers the clothing she was wearing at the time of the inappropriate conduct.

This is not the first time in history that someone has come forward against a politician in order to prevent them from winning a seat. In 1991, Anita Hill came forward against Clarence Thomas, running for a position on the Supreme court. He still won the seat, and as a consequence, Ms. Hill was judged, called delusional and a scorned woman out for revenge. She was viewed as someone meddling in politics, attempting to slander a candidate for personal gain.

This appears to be what is happening and will continue to happen to Ms. Bialek: already, her entire past has been chronicled, as well as her past job history and testaments to her character. It seems that everyone, especially the media and Herman Cain's campaign team, is trying to find a way to prove she's lying, whether in reality or through manipulating public opinion, it makes no difference.

Throughout literature, canon, history, and popular media, the one who spills the beans is seen as weak, spineless, and cowardly. Even as children, we mark the "one who tells" as a tattletale. Thus, in addition to the sexual harassment the women go through, there is an additional toll placed by those who should be listening. According to Laura Beth Nielsen, a researcher at the American Bar Association and an associate professor of law and sociology at Northwestern University,

"I can't tell you how many accusers have gone bankrupt, gotten divorced, or start having drinking or drug-use problems... Even if they win, they feel like they've lost. Some say, 'I'm glad I made the point that they couldn't do that'. But by and large, they feel pretty chewed up and spit out by the justice system" (Chicago Tribune, front page of the edition from Sunday, November 13, 2011)

So why do we hate the whistle-blower so much and why do we treat them in the way we do? I think the answer is multi-fold. It's partly because victims use public media in order to tell their story, which reminds us too much of the people who enter reality competitions like American Idol or Survivor just for fifteen minutes of fame. This occurrence is so common nowadays that we have lost respect for ordinary people (not politicians) propelling controversial viewpoints through the news. Perhaps we also view sexual harassment as something to be accepted or ignored, yet a major counterpoint exists in the reaction to the Penn State scandal, recently revealed; however, the difference is the nature of this scandal, involving young boys versus a grown woman with a past. Also, sexual harassment may not be viewed as a real crime because it's not necessarily rape and no one dies or gets maimed.

Irrespective of the reasoning, from now on, the public should operate under the knowledge that by exposing their harassment, the whistle-blower is putting him or herself into more danger than if they just remained quiet. Scrutinizing them for evidence of lies, bad character, or desire for fame is not necessary to the extent we make it seem. This is not meant to deter questioning the situation, but rather to keep that questioning productive, constructive, and considerate.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know!

The World's Kampf with "Mein Kampf"

According to a post by Sarah Wildman on the Latitude blog of the New York Times, in 2015, the state of Bavaria loses its copyright on the infamous novel Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. To recap on history, let's explore the implication of this book on Germany in the decade before the outbreak of WWII. In an article entitled "How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World", Heather Whipps breaks it down:

"[In Hitler's book,] chief among his ideas was the absolute, innate superiority of the Germanic race, which Hitler called Aryan. "Mein Kampf" singled out Jews as a source of many of Germany's ills and a threat to Aryan dominance. The Aryans had a duty to restore Germany's former glory and enlarge its territory.

"Mein Kampf" gained enormous readership in the early 1930s and became the de facto Nazi bible. Every new married couple received a free copy on their wedding day, and every soldier had one included as a part of his gear. At the outset of World War II, the book had been translated into 11 languages and sold 5 million copies."

That number has since grown to 70 million copies. What does this mean? Well, after this point, any efforts to prevent the publishing or sale of this book will be futile because it will belong to the public domain. Also, Germany's previous efforts to prevent all promotion of Nazi paraphernalia will be undermined in a huge way, with the novel "that started it all" falling outside their jurisdiction. Still, there might be actions that can be taken to further the ban on this book starting in 2015, but they would make many people around the world (even in the US) cringe, appearing to be ardent infringements on the rights of free press.

Is this a problem? It depends on how you see it. Historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus put it best when he said:

"There are those who say, oh, it's passé... But my students tell me they find it engaging. It still 'speaks' in the psychoanalytic sense of the word... It still sells."

I hope this issue can be resolved as some have proposed, by respecting the copyright's expiration, but by publishing only annotated versions of the book which outline the terrible power of the words reflected on the pages. The world (especially Germany) will have to be ready to again receive a dirty part of global history.

Regardless, this whole hullabaloo brings up an a slew of questions: what will the world be like in 2015, just a few short years away, but seventy years after the end of WWII?

I've always gone through school and life believing that this was a war that could never be forgotten, yet everyday, more and more survivors, people with direct memories of that time, are dying. If Mein Kampf goes into the public domain, will it even matter, or is the issue truly passé, like some people believe? How will the way people relate to each other and their history change when the people teaching and learning about the Holocaust weren't alive for it? When my children's children learn about WWII, they will be the child of a child of a child of a child of a Holocaust survivor. Will they even feel a connection to this part of their past like I do and like my mother does? Will WWII even be a part of the world's memory anymore?

Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to hear them!